IRC log of silver on 2021-04-16
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 17:55:10 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #silver
- 17:55:10 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/16-silver-irc
- 17:55:12 [Zakim]
- RRSAgent, make logs Public
- 17:55:13 [Zakim]
- Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
- 17:55:33 [jeanne]
- Meeting: Silver Task Force & Community Group
- 17:55:33 [jeanne]
- present:
- 17:55:33 [jeanne]
- chair: Shawn, jeanne
- 17:55:33 [jeanne]
- present+
- 17:55:34 [jeanne]
- zakim, clear agenda
- 17:55:34 [jeanne]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 17:55:34 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/16-silver-minutes.html jeanne
- 17:55:34 [jeanne]
- q?
- 17:55:34 [Zakim]
- agenda cleared
- 17:55:50 [jeanne]
- q- Wilco
- 17:56:02 [Azlan]
- present+
- 17:56:53 [jeanne]
- agenda+ reminder of upcoming meetings
- 17:56:53 [jeanne]
- agenda+ drafting responses to WCAG3 Issues
- 17:56:53 [jeanne]
- agenda+ agenda and details on 29 April Joint AGWG - Silver meeting
- 17:56:53 [jeanne]
- agenda+ Bronze Silver Gold options
- 17:57:02 [jeanne]
- agenda+ reminder of survey
- 17:57:40 [jeanne]
- agenda order is 1,5,2,3,4
- 17:58:56 [laura]
- laura has joined #silver
- 17:59:01 [jennifer_strickland]
- jennifer_strickland has joined #silver
- 17:59:05 [jennifer_strickland]
- present+
- 17:59:23 [Chuck]
- Chuck has joined #silver
- 17:59:46 [ChrisLoiselle]
- present+
- 18:00:11 [PeterKorn]
- PeterKorn has joined #silver
- 18:00:37 [JF]
- JF has joined #silver
- 18:00:43 [Chuck]
- agenda?
- 18:00:46 [JF]
- Present +
- 18:00:49 [JF]
- agenda?
- 18:00:51 [PeterKorn]
- present+
- 18:00:57 [SuzanneTaylor]
- SuzanneTaylor has joined #silver
- 18:02:01 [Lauriat]
- Lauriat has joined #silver
- 18:02:04 [Lauriat]
- Present+
- 18:03:19 [Francis_Storr]
- Francis_Storr has joined #silver
- 18:03:24 [Francis_Storr]
- present+
- 18:03:43 [Jemma]
- Jemma has joined #silver
- 18:04:02 [Jemma]
- present+
- 18:04:07 [sajkaj]
- present+
- 18:04:11 [sajkaj]
- scribe: sajkaj
- 18:05:05 [jennifer_strickland]
- It's my first week at MITRE and my brain is kaput.
- 18:05:26 [SuzanneTaylor]
- present+
- 18:05:28 [laura]
- present+ Laura_Carlson
- 18:05:36 [sajkaj]
- js: Put the 29th in your calendars! oAM, 1PM, and 5PM Boston!
- 18:05:40 [jeanne]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/vFtF_2021
- 18:06:13 [AngelaAccessForAll]
- AngelaAccessForAll has joined #silver
- 18:06:21 [Chuck]
- janina: The new calendar tool from W3C may be useful now.
- 18:06:21 [AngelaAccessForAll]
- present+
- 18:06:26 [Chuck]
- janina: Live now.
- 18:06:34 [Jemma]
- w3c calendar can also have a link to the minutes
- 18:06:48 [Jemma]
- agenda?
- 18:06:52 [RickBoardman]
- RickBoardman has joined #silver
- 18:06:57 [sajkaj]
- zakim, next item
- 18:06:57 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 -- reminder of upcoming meetings -- taken up [from jeanne]
- 18:07:24 [sajkaj]
- zakim, close this item
- 18:07:24 [Zakim]
- agendum 1 closed
- 18:07:25 [sajkaj]
- zakim, next item
- 18:07:26 [Zakim]
- I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
- 18:07:26 [Zakim]
- 5. reminder of survey [from jeanne]
- 18:07:26 [Zakim]
- agendum 5 -- reminder of survey -- taken up [from jeanne]
- 18:07:29 [jeanne]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2021Apr/0060.html
- 18:07:42 [jeanne]
- https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag3-weekly-responses-survey/
- 18:07:46 [sajkaj]
- js: A survey for us all
- 18:07:58 [sajkaj]
- js: This is issue processing
- 18:08:24 [sajkaj]
- ca: I created, and is next Tuesday's agenda, 20 April
- 18:08:46 [sajkaj]
- ca: Link in first question that will pull up items with a draft response to consider in the telecon
- 18:09:14 [sajkaj]
- ca: Request is to agree with all, or choose other and make a comment regarding your concerns or proposed changes
- 18:09:31 [sajkaj]
- ca: Notes he's crafted the 4 in the current survey
- 18:10:18 [Azlan]
- I cannot access the survey
- 18:10:20 [sajkaj]
- js: Asks whether everyone can access the survey, especially people in via CG?
- 18:10:59 [jennifer_strickland]
- Where is the survey, please?
- 18:11:29 [SuzanneTaylor]
- I'm getting "Not Allowed"
- 18:11:32 [sajkaj]
- ca: Also asks any CG people to check if can access ...
- 18:11:52 [sajkaj]
- rick: Can access everything!
- 18:11:58 [Azlan]
- Thank you
- 18:12:17 [sajkaj]
- jennifer_strickland: Seeing the survey but no response options ...
- 18:12:29 [sajkaj]
- ca: Do you see instructions in a link?
- 18:12:31 [sajkaj]
- js: Yes
- 18:12:32 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 18:12:47 [sajkaj]
- ca: So, one must use the link to go forward
- 18:13:06 [sajkaj]
- ca: Either accept all, or make comment with specifics
- 18:13:25 [KimD]
- KimD has joined #silver
- 18:13:33 [KimD]
- present+
- 18:13:34 [Chuck]
- ack Peter
- 18:13:47 [sajkaj]
- pk: Looking at survey and IBM comments ...
- 18:14:01 [sajkaj]
- pk: Is there plan to break up their doc like was done with ITI?
- 18:14:23 [sajkaj]
- ca: Yes, this is just one item where we were able to get to a response already
- 18:14:30 [sajkaj]
- ack pe
- 18:14:35 [sajkaj]
- zakim, next item
- 18:14:35 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- drafting responses to WCAG3 Issues -- taken up [from jeanne]
- 18:15:29 [sajkaj]
- zakim, take up item 3
- 18:15:29 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 -- agenda and details on 29 April Joint AGWG - Silver meeting -- taken up [from jeanne]
- 18:15:42 [JF_]
- JF_ has joined #silver
- 18:15:54 [sajkaj]
- js: Invites people to look at ...
- 18:16:07 [jeanne]
- https://github.com/w3c/silver/labels/status%3A%20needs%20proposal
- 18:16:24 [sajkaj]
- js: Current list of issues ready for a proposal response draft
- 18:16:35 [sajkaj]
- s/proposal/proposed/
- 18:16:59 [sajkaj]
- js: Recalls Alastair reviewed the process in some detail at our Tuesday AM call
- 18:17:20 [sajkaj]
- js: Important that declining should include reasons
- 18:17:21 [Francis_Storr]
- Francis_Storr has joined #silver
- 18:17:32 [sajkaj]
- s/declining/declining to agree/
- 18:18:09 [sajkaj]
- js: And always remember to be respectful and professional in our responses.
- 18:18:24 [sajkaj]
- ca: Especially with persons outside W3C, but really always
- 18:18:46 [sajkaj]
- js: Notes that Chuck has labeled his responses as "draft,"
- 18:18:56 [sajkaj]
- ca: That's important and we should be sure to do that
- 18:19:30 [sajkaj]
- js: Also, when begin working on a comment, remove label that says "needs proposal" and assign it to yourself.
- 18:19:45 [sajkaj]
- js: If you run into a permissions issue, send your github nick to cooper@w3.org
- 18:19:52 [jeanne]
- send requests for Github access to cooper@w3.org
- 18:20:30 [sajkaj]
- js: Reason for removing "needs proposal" is to avoid more people taking up the same issue response draft with no coordination
- 18:21:07 [sajkaj]
- js: Please keep looking at the "needs proposal" sort, and help us with proposal drafts. This will help immensly
- 18:21:30 [sajkaj]
- js: This should also help support more asyncronous participation
- 18:21:47 [sajkaj]
- zakim, take up item 4
- 18:21:47 [Zakim]
- agendum 4 -- Bronze Silver Gold options -- taken up [from jeanne]
- 18:21:58 [sajkaj]
- agenda?
- 18:22:15 [sajkaj]
- zakim, take up item 3
- 18:22:15 [Zakim]
- agendum 3 -- agenda and details on 29 April Joint AGWG - Silver meeting -- taken up [from jeanne]
- 18:22:35 [Lauriat]
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/vFtF_2021
- 18:22:38 [sajkaj]
- js: We have agenda for bronze/silver/gold meeting ...
- 18:23:23 [sajkaj]
- js: We are taking comments assigned to editors relating to conformance and breaking it down for b/s/g discussion
- 18:23:41 [sajkaj]
- js: we'll start with testing discussion
- 18:24:06 [sajkaj]
- js: we will break this into topics athey'll be available in advance and will be posted in advance
- 18:25:40 [jeanne]
- Session 1
- 18:25:40 [jeanne]
- Context of meeting and short summary of AGWG and Silver Merge plans
- 18:25:40 [jeanne]
- Testing comments and building blocks of testing
- 18:25:40 [jeanne]
- Session 2
- 18:25:40 [jeanne]
- Building blocks of scoring
- 18:25:40 [jeanne]
- Session 3
- 18:25:40 [jeanne]
- Requirements of what we want in Conformance and how to assess the proposals for Conformance
- 18:25:41 [jeanne]
- Options of Bronze Silver Gold document
- 18:25:54 [Lauriat]
- q?
- 18:26:00 [Jemma]
- Q+
- 18:26:06 [sajkaj]
- js: Notes it's all on the agenda page which will continue to get updates
- 18:26:09 [PeterKorn]
- q+
- 18:26:38 [jeanne]
- ack peter
- 18:26:55 [sajkaj]
- pk: Double checking that BSG options is the Google doc with some low teens number of options?
- 18:26:58 [PeterKorn]
- ack p
- 18:26:58 [sajkaj]
- js: Yes!
- 18:27:07 [sajkaj]
- js: We're up to 13!
- 18:27:10 [JF_]
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#
- 18:27:29 [sajkaj]
- Jemma: Sounds very good, but will be missing the sessions, trying to understand link between 1st and 2nd sessions ...
- 18:27:49 [Lauriat]
- ack Jemma
- 18:28:03 [JustineP]
- JustineP has joined #silver
- 18:28:23 [sajkaj]
- js: Notes one may have different tests for html vs a mobile app
- 18:28:43 [sajkaj]
- js: But once test is in hand one evaluates how one does passing the tests
- 18:29:02 [sajkaj]
- js: At the outcome level you get a score number that is averaged from individual tests
- 18:29:15 [PeterKorn]
- Dropping for my conflict...
- 18:29:27 [RickBoardman]
- q+
- 18:29:40 [sajkaj]
- js: Reason for extra scoring level is for the ability to make all scores averagable in a fair manner
- 18:30:24 [sajkaj]
- js: Idea of outcome level is more related to outcome
- 18:30:58 [Lauriat]
- ack RickBoardman
- 18:31:07 [sajkaj]
- janina: Please re-explain!
- 18:31:20 [jeanne]
- Testing happens at the technology level
- 18:31:26 [jeanne]
- Scoring is at the Outcome level
- 18:31:32 [sajkaj]
- rick: Yes, also not understanding yet, can we get one sentence summaries of the pieces? I could volunteer to work on that
- 18:31:52 [sajkaj]
- js: We should re-examine the explanations that Rachael did
- 18:32:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
- https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#tests
- 18:32:52 [Lauriat]
- Tests provide ways to check that methods and techniques have been followed. Tests include step-by-step instructions on evaluating the method based on the technology being used. Tests may vary by technology as needed. Tests specify the unit being tested and the approach to scoring for that test.
- 18:32:55 [sajkaj]
- js: reads from link ...
- 18:32:56 [ChrisLoiselle]
- https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#test-scoring
- 18:33:06 [Lauriat]
- Each method includes information on how to score individual instances of the test. The testing results for methods inform the rating of the related outcome.
- 18:33:27 [SuzanneTaylor]
- https://w3c.github.io/silver/guidelines/#outcome-rating
- 18:33:39 [ChrisLoiselle]
- https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#conformance-levels and https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#outcomes-structure
- 18:33:42 [sajkaj]
- js: Recalls good example re XR
- 18:34:15 [jeanne]
- https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/#captions
- 18:35:06 [sajkaj]
- js: Looking at speech and nonspeech audio ...
- 18:35:40 [sajkaj]
- js: Run test at the tech level it's for, then a translation process level that brings into a rating that would be comparable to an unrelated guideline like plain lang
- 18:35:50 [JF_]
- Q+
- 18:36:02 [Chuck]
- janina: Rating/score might be a useful distinction to make
- 18:36:26 [sajkaj]
- rick: Volunteers again to try and help make it a bit more newbie friendly
- 18:36:46 [sajkaj]
- js: Accepts and will forward anything useful that comes up
- 18:36:46 [Lauriat]
- +1, thank you, Rick!
- 18:36:47 [jeanne]
- ack JF
- 18:37:24 [sajkaj]
- jf: Is this good time to dive into scoring details?
- 18:37:30 [sajkaj]
- js: No, not just now
- 18:37:48 [sajkaj]
- zakim, next item
- 18:37:48 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 -- drafting responses to WCAG3 Issues -- taken up [from jeanne]
- 18:38:02 [sajkaj]
- agenda?
- 18:38:11 [sajkaj]
- zakim, close this item
- 18:38:11 [Zakim]
- agendum 2 closed
- 18:38:12 [Zakim]
- I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
- 18:38:12 [Zakim]
- 4. Bronze Silver Gold options [from jeanne]
- 18:38:14 [sajkaj]
- zakim, next item
- 18:38:14 [Zakim]
- agendum 4 -- Bronze Silver Gold options -- taken up [from jeanne]
- 18:38:14 [jeanne]
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/
- 18:39:02 [sajkaj]
- js: Asks SL to lead discussion ... Are there ones we haven't yet reveiwed
- 18:39:05 [sajkaj]
- sl: I believe 3 to go
- 18:39:18 [sajkaj]
- sl: Believe we stopped at 11
- 18:39:27 [sajkaj]
- sl: So maybe 2
- 18:39:40 [sajkaj]
- topic: Option #12
- 18:39:48 [Lauriat]
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BjH_9iEr_JL8d7sE7BoQckmkpaDksKZiH7Q-RdDide4/edit#heading=h.juk4rs86lt47
- 18:40:05 [ChrisLoiselle]
- I can do it
- 18:40:22 [sajkaj]
- js: Believe it came from PK
- 18:40:37 [sajkaj]
- sl: Ah, yes and we wanted to review with him present ...
- 18:40:43 [sajkaj]
- js: Postpone?
- 18:40:48 [sajkaj]
- sl: Let's start with 13
- 18:40:54 [sajkaj]
- TOPIC: Option #13
- 18:41:16 [sajkaj]
- sl: Makato did walk us through the results so we've had a start
- 18:41:19 [ChrisLoiselle]
- Option 13 it is. Option 13 from Results of the Attendees Survey - Japanese Webinar on FPWD
- 18:41:32 [sajkaj]
- sl: This was outcome from a Japanese conversation Makato translated into English for us
- 18:41:36 [ChrisLoiselle]
- WCAG 2.x Level AA too difficult, prefer something more like - A → Bronze AA → Silver [something higher] → Gold
- 18:41:54 [sajkaj]
- sl: Suggesting Level A approx = to Bronze
- 18:42:13 [sajkaj]
- sl: Then items in AA would be Silver; and a higher standard Gold
- 18:42:18 [Lauriat]
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kX6DnXftI9VSrK9wgTTOqlkFp9KE4OCGxQqgDiAUcTc/edit#heading=h.fc4xg3cwwi2o
- 18:43:12 [sajkaj]
- sl: One pro is that AA is too hard to meet in Japan
- 18:43:24 [sajkaj]
- sl: Hoping for a more feasible standard
- 18:43:37 [sajkaj]
- sl: But why would be a question we woult to have an answer for
- 18:43:45 [jeanne]
- q+ to say that this could be addressed by changing minimum score for bronze
- 18:43:46 [sajkaj]
- sl: Some cons ...
- 18:43:54 [sajkaj]
- sl: Fairness with categories unaddressed
- 18:44:06 [sajkaj]
- sl: Could be addressed by reducing minimum scoring for Bronze
- 18:44:12 [Lauriat]
- ack jeanne
- 18:44:12 [Zakim]
- jeanne, you wanted to say that this could be addressed by changing minimum score for bronze
- 18:44:44 [sajkaj]
- js: There has been conversation whether 3.5 is the correct number for achieving Bronze
- 18:45:00 [sajkaj]
- js: It was arbitrary at first, and intended to get the conversation going
- 18:45:13 [sajkaj]
- js: Subgroups weren't necessarily consistent
- 18:45:31 [sajkaj]
- js: Some groups included AAA at 4; others addressed AA at 4
- 18:45:49 [sajkaj]
- js: Mainly because we ran out of time for publication
- 18:46:02 [sajkaj]
- s/publication/publication deadline/
- 18:46:33 [sajkaj]
- js: We have discussed in discussing how to handle AAA; one outcome was to reduce the score--phps 2.5
- 18:46:55 [sajkaj]
- js: That would support AAA at 4 at outcome
- 18:47:16 [sajkaj]
- js: Theoretically we could also address some of the Japanese concerns that way
- 18:47:33 [sajkaj]
- js: Thought it doesn't address Bronze = A
- 18:48:11 [sajkaj]
- sl: Moved could be addressed to 'issue to work through'
- 18:48:27 [sajkaj]
- sl: and we need to know why AA is to hard in Japan, so we can solve the right problem
- 18:49:10 [ChrisLoiselle]
- for Option 13 : Issues to Work Through - Could be addressed with the FPWD by reducing the minimum point score for Bronze. - Identify the barriers that some geographies have in implementing WCAG - AA - Needs looking more into what makes WCAG 2.x AA too difficult to meet
- 18:49:32 [Chuck]
- janina: Was it because they were not able to get a translation of the spec? Couldn't get ARIA into japanese? that might find a sponsor to resolve.
- 18:49:35 [ChrisLoiselle]
- Janina: Screen readers not translating to Japanese and not knowing what to do? Was that topic part of this?
- 18:49:41 [Chuck]
- jeanne: That's on the "accessibility supported" conversation.
- 18:49:52 [Chuck]
- jeanne: A good question we need to get to, but not today.
- 18:50:28 [sajkaj]
- sl: Looks more an overall complexity of getting to AA -- can't tell exactly why? Alkl or nothing? In which case not a problem as long as scoring takes that into account
- 18:50:38 [sajkaj]
- sl: We'll work with Makato to understand this better
- 18:51:06 [sajkaj]
- Jemma: Recall because hard to understand as written
- 18:51:39 [sajkaj]
- sl: So we may already be making good progress on this, but we'll double check the details
- 18:52:05 [Chuck]
- q+
- 18:52:10 [sajkaj]
- azlan: The difficulty is from the engineering point of view, correct?
- 18:52:27 [sajkaj]
- azlan: Are the outcomes difficult? Isn't that what matters?
- 18:52:36 [jeanne]
- +1
- 18:52:42 [sajkaj]
- sl: +1
- 18:52:42 [Lauriat]
- ack Chuck
- 18:52:54 [sajkaj]
- ca: Not so sure the survey was engineering based
- 18:53:02 [Jemma]
- yes, they are accessibility evaluators
- 18:53:03 [JF_]
- Q+ to note its not always about AT
- 18:53:16 [Jemma]
- in Japan
- 18:53:23 [sajkaj]
- sl: A reason to dig deeper--to avoid making assumptions on the why
- 18:53:31 [Lauriat]
- ack JF_
- 18:53:31 [Zakim]
- JF_, you wanted to note its not always about AT
- 18:53:51 [sajkaj]
- jf: Notes not always about AT; some things don't require AT e.g. captions
- 18:54:46 [Chuck]
- +5
- 18:55:16 [KimD]
- KimD has left #silver
- 18:55:31 [sajkaj]
- zakim, bye
- 18:55:31 [Zakim]
- leaving. As of this point the attendees have been jeanne, Azlan, jennifer_strickland, ChrisLoiselle, PeterKorn, Lauriat, Francis_Storr, Jemma, sajkaj, SuzanneTaylor,
- 18:55:31 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #silver
- 18:55:34 [Zakim]
- ... Laura_Carlson, AngelaAccessForAll, KimD
- 18:55:35 [sajkaj]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 18:55:35 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/16-silver-minutes.html sajkaj
- 18:55:40 [Azlan]
- Azlan has left #silver
- 19:14:42 [sajkaj]
- sajkaj has left #silver
- 19:16:29 [laura]
- laura has joined #silver
- 20:52:31 [johnkirkwood]
- johnkirkwood has joined #Silver